Top 8 Reasons Not to Go to Berkeley

<p>Yes, I have to agree with sakky and UCLAri on this issue. Although going to a great Ivy league school doesn't matter as much for medical school as it does for b-school/law school/graduate school, it can help TREMENDOUSLY. The reason why, as sakky has mentioned time and time again, is the presence of grade inflation. Medical schools, however unfair and foolish their process is, desire the very best grades. Going to Harvard or Stanford or Yale, all schools with grade inflation, will challenge you but not drive you mad like UC-Berkeley or my own state school, University of Michigan. I've heard stories of friends refusing notes or help to other friends because they want to get into a certain graduate school so badly from Michigan. The competition is incredibly and unnecessarily intense. Now I realize this is a deviation from the original argument that sakky brought up about UC-Berkeley and Harvard, but I think it is worth mentioning.</p>

<p>Going to a top school with grade inflation will make your life MUCH easier and provide smoother sailing for your future career. Yes, you're right, d-a-d, you are the only one who can determine your own future. But most students on average who get into Harvard have done so well for themselves and are at such a top level, they would do quite well at whatever they do. There's a reason Harvard chose them for their class and it certainly isn't to land a job a student is going to hate. So, I would say it is a good mix of where you go and WHAT YOU DO with your degree. It isn't mutually exclusive but there are exceptions where people are successful even without going to top schools. Yes you can succeed, but how hard are you willing to work? Do you really understand the competition you are up against at state schools like Berkeley or Michigan? I think it's a nice but false idea when you said that "people who work hard are going to be successful no matter where they go". How hard can you work when your professors are apathetic and do not care about you? How far will your hard work take you when you work intensely and receive a C+ for the semester? What about graduate students who barely know more than you do and can't speak English properly? </p>

<p>Yes, if some of the cards weren't stacked against you in state schools, hard work can take you VERY far. But the fact of the matter is that at schools like Berkeley or Michigan, students cannot just work hard they must work AMAZINGLY hard and still expect less than stellar grades. Compare that to Harvard where you would be challenged but have grade inflation and great professors who care and a less cutthroat student body. Am I speaking of an ideal Harvard? Yes, but I am sure the real Harvard is pretty damn close to that. There is a reason why Harvard pre-meds enjoy a very high acceptance rate to medical school, and usually to the very best schools. </p>

<p>Let's face it: school name might not matter, but grade inflation and a more accommodating yet still challenging environment are MUCH more preferable to a difficult, demanding, bureacratic, frequently apathetic school. Tell me anyone who would choose the latter over the former, really.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You are a cheap shot artist. Somebody says they are going away, tries to be nice to you, and when they turn their back, you take a cheap shot.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Funny, I thought you said you were leaving. </p>

<p>And you accuse me of taking cheap shots? That's funny, coming from you. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You have little or no idea what you are talking with respect to UC Berkeley, UC in general, or California. Based upon your observations and responses you have little or no real world experience other, than it appears, writing thousands of ad naseum postings on CC.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you really saying that I truly don't know anything about Berkeley, UC, or California in general? Do you really want to challenge me on that one? </p>

<p>And what if I was to tell you that I'm a longstanding Berkeley alum? I'm not saying that I am, but what if I was? Would that shut you up? </p>

<p>And what exactly is YOUR relationship with Berkeley? </p>

<p>
[quote]
In one of your postings you appear to speak for Harvard. Do you work for Harvard? If so, is your job for Harvard? Posting thousands of messages on CC?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh? And of my thousands of posts, how many of them pertain to Harvard? Did you even bother to check? </p>

<p>I would say that of the thousands of posts I have made, maybe I have made about 100 posts that talk about Harvard in a positive light. Many of my posts actually have to do with the state of the engineering job market in the US, with nary a mention of Harvard. Why didn't you bother to check that out, before you start making wild accusations?</p>

<p>
[quote]
However, if you look at the resumes of America's leaders; top attorneys, doctors, politicians, engineers, etc. you will be surprised to find out that the vast majority of these people did not attend IVY league schools. When you start getting into the ranks of successful entrepreneurs you will find it thinly populated with IVY league grads. I don't think the IVY league mindset lends itself to entrepreneurship. The point I have been trying to make; using UC Berkeley as an example (BTW, I did not attend or graduate from UC Berkeley) is that in the real world, success is a function of the combination of raw skill, talent, street smarts, and education. Book smarts do not equal street smarts and vice versa. However, you need a good combination of the two to succeed. While a degree from this school or that school may get you into a specific door; it won't help you once you are in. Also, in today's entrepreneurial environment, street smarts combined with book smarts are the name of the game with a heavier weighting on street smarts

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, nobody is trying to say that personal characteristics and drive don't matter. Nobody is trying to say that an Ivy league education guarnatees anything.</p>

<p>But it's a boost. Just like Berkeley is a boost over the lower UC's or over the CalStates. These things are boosts. They help you out. They guarantee you nothing, but they can give you the edge. This is why people compete so hard for spots in the top schools. This is why California high school students would rather go to Berkeley than to SF State. If that wasn't true, then there would be no reason to study hard in high school. So we might as well tell as those hard-studying teenagers that they are all just wasting their time. After all, if it really doesn't matter what school you go to, then why even bother studying hard? Why bother trying to do well? You should just care about passing your high school classes with the minimum possible effort.</p>

<p>d-a-d,</p>

<p>The first sign of a losing argument is ad hominems without anything to back them up. You had some decent arguments before, but now you're just letting sakky win by default.</p>

<p>D-a-d, we'll see what the moderators say about your last post. You claim, by your moniker, to be a parent, yet we see what kind of personal maturity you have, and consequently, how much stock to place in your posts. </p>

<p>Again, my key point is that while Berkeley is good, it's not as good as Harvard, at the undergraduate level. This is a notion that has been supported by numerous facts, and by the opinions of various members on this board. Apparently, d-a-d, this is something that you just can't take.</p>

<p>But don't forget, sakky. Even IF Berkeley is not the best undergraduate school by default, determined undergrads can certainly make Berkeley "their Harvard," if not better.</p>

<p>I agree with the general point that undergrads at any school can accomplish a lot through simple hard work and determination. </p>

<p>But that doesn't take away from the fact that the quality of the school matters. Berkeley is a better school than SF State because it offers more opportunities. Similarly, there are other schools that offer more opportunities than Berkeley does, at the undergrad level.</p>

<p>I think the greatest advantage that Harvard has over Cal at the undergrad level is simply resources. Let's face it, Harvard is almost NEVER strapped for cash. The UCs have to do what they do with a fraction of the funding. I remember at UCLA having a professor opine about how when he taught at Harvard, he never had to worry about getting money for copying handouts. At UCLA, they monitered every single copy he made.</p>

<p>I'm sickened by the amount of paper used inefficiently.. esp. readers.</p>

<p>UCLAri, you wrote:</p>

<p>"d-a-d,</p>

<p>The first sign of a losing argument is ad hominems without anything to back them up. You had some decent arguments before, but now you're just letting sakky win by default."</p>

<p>Oh, that's not true. Personal considerations are part of every discussion and endeavour. The omlette theory. You need to crack a few eggs to make a good omlette.</p>

<p>In this case, Sakky can't win anything because there is nothing to win. Of course, maybe I spoke too soon, and there is a prize for posting the most messages on CC, in which case, Saaky may be a winner.</p>

<p>d-a-d,</p>

<p>I'm not sure if you've spent any time posting on internet forums, but if you have, you'll know the term troll.</p>

<p>You're bordering on trolling right now. Now, I know you think we're pathetic nobodies because we enjoy posting on forums, but there is a certain etiquette to be followed around here. While I do think that sakky does pull the moderator card too quickly, you did get inflammatory first. If you don't care about winning the debate, why bother insulting those who are putting up decent arguments?</p>

<p>"a 2L at Boalt, said:
". . .I know that going in, the Stanford and Harvard 2Ls are going to have an edge on me"</p>

<p>It wasn't all that many years ago that Boalt for law was generally recognized as superior to Stanford for Law from every perscpective. Sadly, that is no longer true.</p>

<p>
[quote]
My question to you is why do you have 3,514 posts on CC? In order to post 3.5 thousand posts a person would have to spend a lot of time doing this? Don't you have something else to do? I thought you were some sort of IVY league type out there setting the world on fire?</p>

<p>Really, you do need to get a life outside of this CC board.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have been here for a long time, and therefore I obviously have many posts. You've been here for a month. I've been here for a year and a half. So obviously I am going to have a lot more posts than you do. </p>

<p>And besides, there are people here who have far more posts than I do. I don't see you bothering them about it. Besides, let's be perfectly honest. If I had been supporting your position, you would never have brought this up. So let's get down to brass tacks. It is not the number of posts that I have that bothers you, but rather it's that my posts disagree with yours. THAT's what is really bothering you. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The fact is that I don't have to win any arguments on this board. Who cares who wins, this is not a competition. I didn't know that this was about winning. However Sakky, you seem to be so heavily invested in CC posting and arguing, that you actually see this as some sort of competition that you have to win. Now that is pathetic.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree that it's not a competition. So why are you bringing this up? You're no different from me. After all, why do you keep posting? You said it yourself - there's nothing to win. </p>

<p>The reason that you keep posting is the same reason that I keep posting. So if I am no more pathetic than you are in constantly posting on this board. </p>

<p>
[quote]
makes you look like some pre-schooler crying to their teacher that that bad boy called me a bad name. WAH WAH.</p>

<p>Grow up and, once again, get a life. Or maybe, the real world is just too difficult for you to deal with. In that case you better stick with your job posting comments on the CC board.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Keep it up, pal, and we'll see how long you last. You're only making yourself look worse and worse to the mods. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Personal considerations are part of every discussion and endeavour. The omlette theory. You need to crack a few eggs to make a good omlette.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So should I post what I really think about you? I'm trying to maintain a certain sense of decorum here. I will say that, unlike you, I am not a parent. I thought that parents were supposed to bring a certain degree of maturity to the discussion. </p>

<p>Look, in any case, the bottom line is that I don't think Berkeley is as good as Harvard at the undergraduate level, for a number of reasons - resources, advising, support, and, yes, name-brand to some degree. That doesn't mean that Harvard is a perfect school, but I believe it has fewer shortcomings than Berkeley does in the undergrad program. Looks like the bulk of people here agree with that. People are free to disagree, but people are NOT free to violate the rules of this discussion board in doing so, particularly as it has to do with personal attacks and insults. It is one thing to say that you disagree with somebody's opinion. It is quite another to engage in attacks.</p>

<p>Sakky are you not measuring up at grad school because of some shortcomings at Berkeley?</p>

<p>UCLAri:</p>

<p>Yeah, UCLAri, I know a tiny bit about the internet and how it works ;-)</p>

<p>Back in the '80s, before the internet took off, we used modem banks to set up online bulletin board systems (BBS). My partner and I still have some of that hardware stored away somewhere for posterity. A future donation to a computer museum. There was a term that grew out of the pre-internet BBS businesses. That term was/is "modemhead".</p>

<p>A "modemhead" was/is a person, who was/is constantly connected to a BBS, or (today) the internet, who has no life other than that of being online. So , in response to your troll comment; my observation would be that your 2,486 (nowhere near Sakky's 3,515 comments) comments are brigning you dangerously close to becoming a member of the modemhead club. </p>

<p>I do love the term "troll" though. It has a nice ring to it. I've been called worse. </p>

<p>You wrote:</p>

<p>"If you don't care about winning the debate, why bother insulting those who are putting up decent arguments?"</p>

<p>Who said Sakky was putting up decent arguments? Sakky is fun, you make a comment and Sakky goes off on a thousand or two thousand word posting rant. </p>

<p>You folks need to loosen up a little on this board. As my daughter would say, chill out. You take yourselves way too seriously.</p>

<p>Saaky wrote:</p>

<p>"Keep it up, pal, and we'll see how long you last. You're only making yourself look worse and worse to the mods."</p>

<p>Now we're pals? See Saaky, I knew you would warm up to me. You are so fun to play with. You have been being gamed and you didn't even know it. </p>

<p>ROFLMAO ;-)</p>

<p>sakky, are you sure Harvard has more resources than Berkeley at the undergrad level? </p>

<p>I don't fully agree. The schools have different programs and different strenghts. </p>

<p>My brother goes to Harvard, I go to Berkeley. We're both Asian History majors. Berkeley's Asian history resources are better than Harvard's. Is my brother mad and jealous that this is so? You bet he is. Too often I think that you, sakky, mostly bother to talk about the math, science, and engineering aspects of colleges and leave out the humanities and social sciences; of which Berkeley's Asian History is clearly superior to Harvard's Asian History. Now, since I know you like US News, here are its rankings for Asian History: </p>

<ol>
<li> University of California–Berkeley</li>
<li> Harvard University (MA)</li>
<li> Yale University (CT)</li>
</ol>

<p><a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdhum/brief/hissp3_brief.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdhum/brief/hissp3_brief.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>And yes I know these are Ph. D rankings but it makes no difference, the undergrad program is just as hard, just as personalized (and naturally, just as good.)</p>

<p>I was clearly using the word 'pal' in the ironic sense. If you couldn't figure that out, I don't know what to tell you, buddy. </p>

<p>I agree that you have been fun to play with too, although I'll leave it up to the readers to decide who's really been gamed.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Sakky are you not measuring up at grad school because of some shortcomings at Berkeley?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'll happily compare my performance to yours.</p>

<p>
[quote]
sakky, are you sure Harvard has more resources than Berkeley at the undergrad level? </p>

<p>I don't fully agree. The schools have different programs and different strenghts. </p>

<p>My brother goes to Harvard, I go to Berkeley. We're both Asian History majors. Berkeley's Asian history resources are better than Harvard's. Is my brother mad and jealous that this is so? You bet he is. Too often I think that you, sakky, mostly bother to talk about the math, science, and engineering aspects of colleges and leave out the humanities and social sciences; of which Berkeley's Asian History is clearly superior to Harvard's Asian History. Now, since I know you like US News, here are its rankings for Asian History: </p>

<ol>
<li>University of California–Berkeley</li>
<li>Harvard University (MA)</li>
<li>Yale University (CT)</li>
</ol>

<p><a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/gr...issp3_brief.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/gr...issp3_brief.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>And yes I know these are Ph. D rankings but it makes no difference, the undergrad program is just as hard, just as personalized (and naturally, just as good.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am saying that on an overall level, Harvard has greater per-capita resources. Obviously there are certain programs in which Berkeley may be better than Harvard. However, in an overall sense, this is not true. </p>

<p>Since you invoked USNews, I feel free to do the same. Consider the categories of faculty resources and financial resources. You will see that Harvard has more. Berkeley isn't bad, but Harvard does tend to bring superior resources to the table.</p>

<p>Ok. You're saying Harvard has more money. I agree with that. However, for whatever reason, US News has publically declared that Harvard's Asian History professors, in spite of their abundant financial resources, just aren't as good as Berkeley's financially disadvantaged Asian History professors. What does that mean?</p>

<p>It means Berkeley has smarter Asian History professors than Harvard! In fact, Berkeley's History professors on the whole are smarter than Harvard! (<a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdhum/brief/hisrank_brief.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdhum/brief/hisrank_brief.php&lt;/a&gt;) The only competition is from Yale and Princeton, and both schools have less money than Harvard. So maybe there is something fundamentally wrong with Harvard's History professors/department. The same could be said about Stanford. </p>

<p>So stop making Berkeley undergrad look so generally horrible. For Asian History majors, it's not the best we "could do" (admissions wise,) but the absolute BEST it is possible to do. </p>

<p>Both schools are great at different things, and those things need to be emphasized. But the fact that most of Berkeley's programs are better than Harvard's programs should not be forgotten. These Cal "masterprograms" are available to any undergrand who wants them, perhaps even more so than at Harvard College because Harvard humanities professors, unlike their Berkeley counterparts, are notorius for being unfriendly, self-absorbed monsters.</p>